because there are more people looking for work for longer than at any time since the last time there was a conservative government. and here is the other thing, what about borrowing? borrowing. the thing they said was their number one priority. this year borrowing is rising not falling. let me just say that again. borrowing the thing they said was the most important priority, the reason they were elected. it is rising not falling. not because there hasn't been pain and tax rises and cuts affecting every family in this country. not because they didn't want to cut it borrowing. they did. not because your services aren't getting worse. they are. but because if you stop an economy growing, then it leaves more people out of work

claiming benefits, not paying taxes. businesses struggle so they're not paying taxes. and as a result borrowing goes up. borrowing not to invest in schools, in hospitals, transport and education. but borrowing to keep people idle. so the next time you hear a conservative say to you labour would increase borrowing, just remember it is this government that is increasing borrowing this year. [applause] so what have we seen? we've seen recession, higher unemployment, higher borrowing. people think that's what were promised. now look there will be some people who say, and this is an important argument, they'll be

some people who say, well there is short-term pain but it is worth it for the long-term gain. but i'm afraid the opposite is true. you see that the longer you have low growth in our country the bigger the debt hole becomes for the future and the bigger our problems will be in the future. the longer a young person is out of work that is not just bad for their prospects now; it is bad for their prospects for the whole of the rest of their lives. and if a small business goes under during the recession, it can't just get back up and running again during the recovery. so when david cameron says to you, well let's just carry on as we are and wait for something to turn up. don't believe him. don't believe him. if the medicine's not working you change the medicine.

[applause] and friends, i'll tell you what else you change. you change the doctor too. and that is what this country needs to do. [applause] now look around you, you know the problem is the british people are paying the price of this government's failure. you're going to the petrol station and not filling up your tank because you can't afford it. your tax credits are being cut because the government says it can't afford it. your frail mum and dad are not getting the care they need because the government says it can't afford it. but there are some things this government can afford. the wrong things.

what do they think at this most difficult economic time is going to get us out of our difficulties? what do they choose as their priority? a tax cut for millionaires. a tax cut for millionaires. next april, david cameron will be writing a check for £40,000 to each and every millionaire in britain. not just for one year. but each and every year. that is more than the average person earns in a whole year. at the same time as they're imposing a tax on pensioners next april. friends, we, the labour party, the country knows it is wrong. it is wrong what they're doing. it shows their priorities. and here's the worse part. david cameron isn't just writing the checks.

he is receiving one. he's going to be getting the millionaire's tax cut. [applause] so next week maybe mr. cameron can tell us how much is he awarding himself in a tax cut? how much is that tax cut he is awarding himself? for a job, i guess he thinks is a job well done. how many of his other cabinet colleagues have checks in the post from the millionaire's tax cut? and how can he justify this unfairness in britain 2012. and of course let's not forget this tax cut wouldn't be happening without nick clegg and the liberal democrats.

isn't it shameful that the party that supported, that implemented the people's budget of 1909, lloyd george's budget, is supporting the millionaire's budget of 2012. so that's the reality in britain today. it is a rebate for the top. it's rip-off for everybody else. it's a recovery for the top. it's a recession for everybody else. this prime minister said, we are all in it together. don't let him ever tell us again we are all in this together. [applause] and friends, i say this. you can't be a one nation prime minister if you raise taxes on ordinary families and cut taxes for millionaires. you can't be a one nation prime

minister if all you do is seek to divide the country. divide the country between north and south. public and private. those who can work and those who can't work. and you can't be a one nation prime minister if your chief whip insults the great police officers of our country by calling them plebs. [applause] but there is one thing that this government might have claimed to be good at, and that is competence. because after all, they think

they're born to rule. so maybe they'd be good at it. have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out of touch, u-turning, pledge- breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower than this prime minister and this government? there's more there's more, not quite disraeli but there is more.

what have we had. we've had the caravan tax, we've had the churches tax, we've had the pasty tax, we've had the granny tax, we've had panic at the pumps, we've had dinners for donors, we've had country supers with rebekah brooks. he even rode the horse. he sent the texts, he sent the texts. remember lol. and now what do we have. we have the minister for murdoch becoming the minister for the national health service. we have an international development secretary; she says she doesn't believe in international development. and get this, we've got a party chairman who writes books about how to beat the recession, under a false name.

really, i'm not making this up. i'm really not making this up. i mean i have to say if i was chairman of the conservative party, i'd have a false name too. but here is my favorite one of all. there's one more, here's my favorite one of all. there is even a bloke, and i think they call him lord hill who went to see the prime minister. he made an appointment during the last reshuffle in order to resign. but david cameron was too incompetent to notice that he wanted to resign. so lord hill is still in the government. this lot are so useless they can't even resign properly. [applause]

so they're not going to build one nation, so it is up to us. and let me say to you, one nation is not a way of avoiding the difficult decisions, it is a way of making the difficult decisions. and i've just got to be very clear about this and about what we face as the next labour government. you see i think it is incredibly important that to be one nation we must show compassion and support for all those who cannot work. particularly the disabled men and women of our country. but in order to do so, those who can work have a responsibility to do so. we can't leave people languishing out of work, for one year, two years, three years. we've got a responsibility to help them and they've got a responsibility to take the work that is on offer.

to be one nation, we have got to give much greater dignity to our elderly population because you know, we're going to have to tackle the care crisis that faces so many families up and down this country. and look, living longer should be one of the great virtues of the 21st century. but friends, in order to be able to afford to do that, we are going to have to work longer, have a later retirement age than we do now. to be one nation, we have got to live within our means. and because borrowing is getting worse not better, it means there will be many cuts that this government made that we won't be able to reverse even though we would like to. and that's why we've said in this parliament that we'd put jobs before pay in the public sector. and in the next parliament, we will have tough settlements for the public services and that will make life harder for those

who use them and harder for those who work in them. but here is the big difference between a one nation government led by me, and this government. those with the broadest shoulders will always bear the greatest burden. [applause] i would never cut taxes for millionaires and raise them on ordinary families. that is wrong, that is not being one nation. and here is the other thing, i will never accept an economy where the gap between rich and poor just grows wider and wider. in one nation, in my faith, inequality matters. it matters to our country. now what does it mean to the labour party to be one nation?

it means we can't go back to old labour. we must be the party of the private sector just as much as the party of the public sector. as much the party of the small business struggling against the odds, as the home help struggling against the cuts. [applause] we must be the party of south just as much as the party of the north. [applause] and we must be the party as much of the squeezed middle as those in poverty. there is no future for this party as the party of one sectional interest of our country. [applause]

but so too it is right to move on from new labour because new labour, despite its great achievements, was too silent about the responsibilities of those at the top, and too timid about the accountability of those with power. in one nation responsibility goes all the way to the top of society. the richest in society have the biggest responsibility to show responsibility to the rest of our country. and i've got news for the powerful interests in our country, in one nation no interest, from rupert murdoch to the banks, is too powerful to be held to account. so we must be a one nation party to become a one nation

government, to build a one nation britain. and here's how we are going to take these steps to do that. we need a one nation economy and the first big mission of the next labour government is to sort out our banks. sort them out once and for all. not just to prevent another crisis but to do what hasn't been done in decades. necessary to enable us to pay our way in the world. we need banks that serve the country not a country that serves its banks. [applause] think about alan henderson, the small businessman i talked about earlier on. he wanted to be able to go into

his bank, look his high street manager in the eye and know that he was working for him. instead he found a bank more interested in playing the international money markets. that's why he was ripped off. of course, this government promised change, but things aren't really changing. so i have got a message for the banks, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. either you fix it yourselves between now and the election or the next labour government will once and for all ensure that the high street bank is no longer the arm of a casino operation and we will break you up by law. [applause]

now look friends, there will be some people who say this is all too radical, let's just carry in as we are. i say we can't carry on as we are. we can't carry on as we are, two nations not one. the banks and the rest of britain. we must have a one nation banking system as part of a one nation economy. next, we need an education system that works for all young people. you see, to be a one nation economy you have got to use all the talents of all of our young people. it's not just that it's socially right, it is absolutely essential for our economy for the future.

i remember when chris and i were at haverstock. i remember at haverstock school, my comprehensive, the kids who were good at passing exams, who were academic, they could go to university and the world would just open up for them like it did for me. but think about all those kids who had talent and ability, great talent and ability. school just didn't offer them enough. it was true twenty five years ago, and it is even more true today. just think in your minds eye about the 14 year old today. today is a school day. think about that 14-year-old, not academic, already bored at school, maybe already starting that process of truanting, of not going to school. now of course they need to get back to school and their parents need to get them back to school.

they can't afford to drift through life with no qualifications and britain can't afford for them to do it either. but we can't just say to that 14-year-old just put in the work, because we have been failing them too. you see for a long time our party has been focused on getting 50% of young people into university. i believe that was right. but now it's time to put our focus on the forgotten 50% who do not go to university. [applause] here's the choice that i want to offer to that 14-year-old who is not academic. english and math to 18 because rigor in the curriculum matters. but courses that engage them and are relevant to them.

work experience with employers. and then culminating at the age of 18 with a new gold standard qualification so they know when they are taking that exam they have a gold standard vocational qualification, a new technical baccalaureate. a qualification to be proud of. you know, we've got to change the culture of this country, friends. we can't be a country where vocational qualifications are seen as second class. they are a real route to apprenticeships and jobs. they can be as valuable to our young people as a university degree. we need to make it so. so we've got to change the culture in this country and

there needs to be that real route to apprenticeships but let me tell you though, there is another problem. only one in three large employers in britain actually offers apprenticeships. and if anything, in the public sector the situation is far, far worse. that is about a culture of a country. that's about a culture of a country which hasn't been dealt with for decades. it is the task of the next labour government to do that. so the public sector is going to have to step up to the plate and understand we can't be two nations. we can't be two nations. and when the public sector offers contracts to the private sector the next labour government will ensure that every private sector contract will only be awarded to a large

company that trains the next generation with apprenticeships. [applause] because when the public sector is having a contract with a private sector company, it is not just buying goods and services, it must be about building one nation together. public and private sectors joining together to do it. and we need a new deal with british business. you get the money, you get control of the money for training, as you have long asked for, you set the standards, as you have long asked for. but you have a responsibility to make sure the training happens. in one nation there is no place

for free riding. free riding where firms that don't train poach workers from firms that do. [applause] now think about this vision of education. education to the age of 18 with proper vocational qualifications, and then think about the vision on offer from the conservatives. michael gove. michael gove, who wanted to bring back two-tier academic exams. i remember what that was like. o-levels and cses one whole group of young people written off.

we are not going back to those days. michael gove who has contempt for vocational qualifications and has abolished some of the best vocational qualifications our country has. and michael gove who has nothing to say about education to 18. so in education there really is a choice of two futures. education for a narrower and narrower elite, with the conservatives. or a one nation skills system as part of a one nation economy with the next labour government. [applause]

to be a one nation economy we have to make life just that bit easier for the producers, and that bit harder for the predators. predators and producers, i think one year on people know what i was talking about. [applause] you see businesses tell me that the pressure for the fast buck from city investors means they just can't take the long view. they want to plan one year, two years, ten years ahead but they have to publish their accounts in britain every 3 months. in line with the wishes of the best of british business, we will end that rule so companies in britain can take the long term productive view for our country. companies in britain are far

more easily bought and sold than in many other countries. do you know that when a takeover is launched the hedge funds and the speculators can swoop in for a quick profit? they are not acting in the interests of firms or the nation. they are just in it for the fast buck. it is wrong and we will change it. and here is the thing, ladies and gentlemen, i invite british businesses -- work with us in advance of the next labour government. let's refound the rules of the game so we have a one nation business model as part of a one nation economy for our country. [applause] so friends, in banks, in education in the rules of the game for companies -- one nation gives us an urgent call of change.

but one nation is not just about the things we need to change, it is about the things we need to conserve as well. saying that doesn't make me a conservative. our common way of life matters. my vision of one nation is an outward looking country. a country which engages with europe and the rest of the world. i am incredibly proud to be the son of immigrant parents. i am incredibly proud of the multi-ethnic diverse britain which won us the olympic bid. the olympics saw that kind of country here in britain. [applause] to make that vision work,

immigration must work for all, not just the sum. too often in the past we have overlooked those concerns. dismissed them to easily. here is where my approach will be different from the last labor government and this conservative government. we need a secure management of our borders. we need competent management of the system. here is the big change. immigration has significant economic benefits. but not when it is a used to undercut workers already in here and exploit people coming. -- coming here. the last labor government did

not do enough to address these concerns. the tories and never will. but the next labor government will crack down on employers who cracked down on minimum- wage. we will stop recruitment agencies saying they will only hire people from overseas. we will end of the shady practices in the construction and industry. so we need a system of immigration that works for the whole country and not just for some. you know there is no more important area of our common life than the united kingdom itself. now one of the four countries, scotland, will be deciding in the next two years whether to stay or to go.

i want to be quite clear about this, scotland could leave the united kingdom. but i believe we would be far worse off as a result. not just in pounds and pence but in the soul of our nation. [applause] you see i don't believe that solidarity stops at the border. i care as much about a young person unemployed in motherwell as i do about a young person unemployed here in manchester. we have common bonds, we have deep bonds with each other. the people of scotland and the people of the rest of the united kingdom. and by the way, if you think about the people of scotland and the olympic games, they weren't cheering on just the scottish athletes of team gb, they were cheering on all the athletes of

team gb. [applause] that's what the snp don't understand. and why would a party that claims to be left o f centre turn its back on the redistribution, the solidarity, the common bonds of the united kingdom? friends, it is up to us. it is up to us, we the labour party must be the people who fight, defend and win the battle for the united kingdom. and after the united kingdom itself there is no more important area of our common life than the nhs.

the magic of the nhs for me is that you don't leave your credit card at the door. the nhs, it's based on a wle different set of values, a whole different set of values that the people of britain love. not values of markets, money and exchange but vues of compassion, care and co- operation. that is the magic of the nhs. that is why the british people love the nhs and i'm afraid the tories have shown in government it's something they just don't understand. remember before the last

election, remember those airbrushed posters? i'll protect the nhs with that picture of david cameron. remember those speeches? the three most important letters to me, he said, were n-h-s. it was a solemn contract with the british people. and then what did he do? he came along after the election and proposed a top-down reorganization that nobody voted for, that nobody knew about and nobody wanted. and here's the worst part. when it became unpopular he paused. remember the pause? he said he wanted to listen, and what happened? the gps said no. the nurses saino.

the paediatricians said no. the radiologists said no. the patients said no. and the british people said no. and what did he do? he ploughed on regardless. he broke his solemn contract with the british people, a contract that can never be repaired. [applause] let me tell what i hate about this reorganization. let me tell you what i hate. i hate the waste, i hate the waste of billions of pounds at a time the nhs has its worst settlement, its most difficult settlement for a generation. i hate the fact that there are 5,500 fewer nurses than when david cameron came to power. think of what he could have

done if he hadn't spent billions of pounds on that top-down reorganization and had used the money to employ nurses, rather than sacking them. [applause] but here's what i hate most of all. it's that the whole way they designed this nhs reorganization was based on the model of competition that there was in the privatized utility industry, gas, energy, and water. what does that tell you about these tories? what does that tell you about the way they don't understand the values of the nhs? the nhs isn't like the gas, electricity, and water industries. the nhs is the pride of britain. the nhs is based on a whole

different set of values for our country. friends, it just shows that the old adage is truer now than it ever was -- you just can't trust the tories on the nhs. [applause] so let me be clear, let me be clear, the next labour

government will end the free market experiment, it will put the right principles back at the heart of the nhs and it will repeal the nhs bill. [applause] so friends, this is where i stand. this is who i am. this is what i believe. this is my faith. you know, i was talking to my mum this morning, as you do before a big speech, and she reminded me her mother was born in a small polish village in 1909. i went back to that village with my mum about a decade ago. about 2,000 people live there

and it's quite an event having people from england coming over. it feels a long way from that village, and what my parents experienced, to this stage today. you see britain has given my family everything. britain has given my family everything. britain and the spirit, the determination, the courage of the people who rebuilt britain after the second world war. and now the question is asked again -- who in this generation will rebuild britain for the future? who can come up to the task of rebuilding britain? friends, it falls to us, it falls to us, the labour party. as it has fallen to previous generations of labour party pioneers to leave our country a better place than we found it. never to shrug our shoulders at injustice and say that is the

way the world is. to come together, to join together, to work together as a country. it's not some impossible dream. we've heard it, we've seen it, we've felt it. that is my faith. one nation -- a country for all, with everyone playing their part. a britain we rebuild together. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause]

[applause] >> the vice-presidential debate this thursday night on c-span. watch and engage. >> next, a debate in the connecticut senate. after that, a discussion on the race-based -- a discussion on race in the college qualifier

admissions. then a discussion on the civil war in syria. >> individuals i have met with -- an individual that i met with said he had sometimes as much alacrity with issues that are sent before the commission for not enjoining actions on other issues. i think about other ways. one of the things admission can do and should do is enable more dynamic trade. i have taken steps. >> can you think of ways the fcc can remove barriers? >> from a regulatory

perspective, my goal would be to remove the barriers, to enable the private sector to make those risks and make those those multibillion dollar investment decisions. >> monday night on the "communicators," ajit pai. >> this debate is courtesy fsb tv. it's an hour. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> from channel 3 eyewitness news, a special campaign 2012 senate debate. >> a very good sunday to you. welcome to the first debate in the race for the u.s. senate seat currently held by the retiring senator, joe lieberman. first, the rules. each candidate will have 90 seconds.

please welcome our panelists. and now, let's bring our candidates, democrat chris murphy and republican linda mcmahon. a coin toss determined that ms. mcmahon will begin with a one minute opening statement. >> good morning, and thanks to channel 3 and our panelists and welcome to our studio audience. i am often asked why are you running for the united states senate? the answer is simple.

i have six grandchildren and future generations will be guarantee america's promise for prosperity. that promise is rapidly slipping away because our economy is on the wrong track. 170,000 people woke up in our state this morning without a job. we can get our economy back on track if we get our people back to work. i have a plan to do that. i have been there. >> thank you, dennis, and thank you to channel 3. you know, i'm a product of connecticut's middle class. my grandfather worked in the factories of new britain. my grandmother is a retired teacher from new field. i believe i need to stand up for the middle class families that meant so much to my family. it is why i passed connecticut's stem cell law which is saving lives and putting people to work.

i went to congress to stand out for -- to stand up for manufacturing. it is a very different story from linda mcmahon's. she has shown over and over again that she stands up for herself and her profits at the expense of the people she works for and the state. i look forward to the next hour. >> our first question is to mr. murphy. >> both of you have had personal financial problems. mr. murphy, you have been sued for nonpayment of mortgage bills. mrs. mcmahon, you have filed for bankruptcy and walked away from that. how can connecticut voters feel confident you are going to be able to exercise good judgment on federal budget decisions affecting connecticut taxpayers when at times you have mismanaged your own personal

finances? >> thank you for this question. i have made mistakes in my personal finances. i made those mistakes and i fix them. the fact is everyone who has looked into these allegation has been making in these campaign as they are completely fall -- completely false. every independent financial expert. what makes a lot of these attack ads we have seen especially troubling is the fact that during the exact same time, linda mcmahon had not paid the $1 million she owed her creditors. she wrote $28,000 in property taxes on her home in stanford. here is what i hear what i am talking to people in the state -- they don't want this race to be about allegations about personal finances or attack ads. they want this race to be about them. they want to know which one of us is going to fight hard for their job, which one is going to stop the outsourcing of work from connecticut factories, they want to know how we're going to

fix the schools. they want this race to be about them. and that's going to be my focus over the course of the last four weeks of this race, talking about the issues that matter to the people of this state. >> i agree that we need to talk about the issues in this state. an occasional financial slip is not what we're talking about here. but you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans and your attendance in washington. those are issues that are important to the folks of connecticut because they want to know can they trust the congressman or senator they're sending to washington to represent them and work and fight for them. i have had a career of creating jobs and contributing to the economy of connecticut. i have a plan to do that. you have no plan.

my plan starts with a tax cut for the middle class. my plans for a tax cut for the middle-class and reduces taxes on businesses and rolls back overburdens in regulation and cuts spending one penny of every dollar. it focuses on education to make sure we are empowering our workforce for the jobs that are available. lastly, it develops a comprehensive energy plan so we can put people back to work while we are protecting our economy and being an energy independent. i spend time developing my plan. you have no plan. i think the people of connecticut want to know what we're going to do for them. >> mr. murphy, you have 30 seconds. >> linda mcmahon should stop spreading the fiction that i have no plan to find jobs. it's ok to make up stories when you are wrestling, but it is not ok to make up stories when you

are running for the senate. my work is based in the work of debt and public service and focusing tax cuts on the middle-class, not by focusing tax cuts on the affluent and rich. my focus is on rebuilding the education system, not divesting from funding the most important services to our states. they're big differences in are planted as we should be talking about. >> is the public being well served by the quality and nature of this angst? we are here today in a formal debate, and you are probably going to answer around a dozen questions. but both of you have failed a basic standard of transparancy and access in the campaign. press conferences are few and far between, if at all. neither one of the performs the basic task of letting us know where you are from day today so we can simply listen to what you are telling voters. this is pretty basic stuff.

your campaign, serving the voters of connecticut -- how is your campaign serving the voters of connecticut? >> i am out every single day. i have traveled out of state and visited 250 businesses and been in over 150 living rooms around the state. i like the effectiveness of the campaign or we can bring our message directly to the people of connecticut. i like the folks in connecticut to be able to look be in the eye and ask me the questions they want to ask me. i learn from them and listen to them when i am out and i think our campaign is being run very effectively by our messaging and with our interaction with the voters. it's the voters in connecticut who are going to make the choice, the voters in connecticut who are going to decide whether or not the people in washington will fight for them, actually have a plan to address the most serious issue today facing our country, and that is jobs and the economy.

my opponent does not have a plan. you you can look online and see exactly what i plan to do. i have a track record of creating jobs and helping the economy. they know i am going to take that into washington in a congress where we have more few interest people. >> why can't the press go along with the ride? >> i enjoy working with the press. the campaign is it about the people of the state of connecticut. >> i ran into a guy a couple

weeks ago at the hebrew fair, and out of work painter and he wants to know the differences between linda and i between how we're going to put him back on the job. they're big differences. when the's plan is focused on giving herself a $7 million tax cut and hoping that trickles down to people who need help. >> why the lack of access as far as where the two of you are day in, day out. >> i don't think there is any >> i'm going to take time to -- >> why the lack of access as far as where the two of you are day in and day out? >> i don't think there is anything comparative in terms of access. linda has refused to meet with editoral boards. i have been very willing to do so. i can't count the number of press conferences i have done in a goodly manner. linda mcmahon does not want this campaign to be about issues.

if it is, the differences on the tax policies or support for education or women's health care. she can't win, because her economic plan is rooted in republican national talking points. my economic plan is rooted in the people of the state. >> it is going to take time to respond to the very serious charge congressman murphy has just leveled against me. congressman murphy, shame on you. you have just accused me of plagerizing my plan. it is beneath a congressman who is sitting today or anyone who is running for the united states senate. you know very well by plan is my own. i have sought the expert opinions of those outside to get the brightest and the best and every word of that plan has been cited either in the online plan or in print.

when you got into this race as a democrat in the state of connecticut, you thought this was going to be a coronation, and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman. >> we're going to move on to the next question. >> in this tide of rising national debt, i was wondering mr. murphy, about the question about congressional earmarks. do you support elimination of them? here is one. $1.9 million for a water taxi to pleasure beach in bridgeport. >> first call me respond to this last allegation. there is no doubt when you look at linda mcmahon's plan, there are pourings lifted from the house web site.

from the cato institute. i don't know what you want to call it, but all i am saying is this is not a plan rooted in what best for the state of connecticut. linda mcmahon's plan is attractive to right-wing republicans in washington, but it just doesn't work. it has never worked. let's talk about the differences. let's talk about the fact that my plan continues to be rooted in what's best for connecticut, and mrs. mcmahon's plan is rooted in paragraphs that were rooted in right-wing theological intentions. we need to take a very different way of looking at how the federal government spends money. i support a moratorium on your

marks because it had gotten out of control before it to congress. but that's the beginning slice of a much bigger question about how we bring down the size of the federal government. i have called for a 1% reduction in overall discretionary spending. i have called for a balanced approach on deficit reduction requiring the wealthy to pay more and more cutting in the federal government. that's the way we're going to cut the federal deficit. >> miss mcmahon, you have 90 seconds. >> again, shame on you. you thought this campaign is going to be a coronation because you're a democrat and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman and you are desperate. therefore you raise these issues. my plan sites every word that i used from the brightest in the best to put my plan together. you would be better served to be putting a plan together. you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. to be honest about your attendance in washington. shame on you for taking this direction with this campaign. it is beneath you. and the people of connecticut

deserve better. in my plan, i have referenced a tax cut for the middle class. my plan, if you take a look at it, absolutely keeps taxes the same across the board accept -- except that we are going to cut taxes for the middle class. my plan is the only one that has an actual middle-class tax cut. congressman murphy has voted to raise taxes on the middle class over two times already. his actions speak louder than his words. take a look at my plan -- it will cut taxes for the middle-class and we will cut taxes for businesses. however, when we cut taxes for businesses, we will eliminate earmarks and loopholes and special subsidies. >> thank you, mrs. mcmahon. you have 30 seconds to rebut.

>> here is what the director of connecticut's mayor for economic analysis says about mrs. mcmahon's plan. it is a recipe to baloon the federal deficit at a phenomenal rate. it looks like her items were picked off of a menu of politically attractive items. they were, because they were like -- or picked off a list of items with it from someone else outside the state and you should be honest about the fact that these are not original ideas. these are ideas that have been tried and failed over and over again. >> it has not worked for this economy and it will not work for the future. >> we will have closing arguments at the end of the statement. we would invite you if you could to please keep to the questions. our next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> let's talk about ways to improve social security. should payroll taxes be raised or should more income be applied to the payroll tax rate to improve social security?

>> first of all, let me address that congressman murphy again on the campaign trail has not been honest about my position on social security. i have never indicated. and please pay attention and let me be clear. i would support no budget that will reduce our benefits for social security or medicare to our seniors. >> the question is about increasing payroll taxes to support social security in the future. >> i'm going to get to your answer. i believe we're going to have to reform social security and medicare in order that it will continue to be available for generations to come. that's what i'm going to work on depog. however, i believe we have to sit in a bipartisan way in congress the issues on the table and address those things that are going to be put into place to save and preserve social security and medicare for the future. we will do that in a bipartisan way.

we will see what the financial impacts of that are. we all agree, we cannot continue in the way -- we all agree it cannot sustain itself the way it is bidding, however, we also know we have to work together to make sure we can devise a plan that is going to work. >> are you interested in raising the payroll tax to improve social security? >> i'm going to sit in a bipartisan commission and congress to work with all members to put the issues on the table which we need to address to prolong social security and medicare. >> mr. murphy, you have 90 seconds. >> that was one minute and 30 seconds of i'm not going to tell you what i'm going to do if you elect me. that's what this whole campaign has been about. about linda mcmahon not being straight with the people of connecticut when they get looked in the eye by her on what she's going to do with social security. i will answer your question directly. i would look at increasing the payroll tax, the amount of income if we need to increase the amount of money coming into

social security to preserve it for future zpwren generations. but let's talk about what linda mcmahon has said. i don't want to put words in your mouth, so let's take a direct quote. when you were before a tea party group that you didn't think anyone was listening, and this is a direct quote. "and i do believe there are ways to look at it. what we're trying to do, when we put social security in place. this is linda mcmahon's 47% moment.

that would be a disaster for the people of this state, the thousands of connecticut senior to rely on that paycheck coming into shall security month after month. we can be looking at something, which is a nice way of saying and the social security. >> you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> there you go again not being honest. the rest of that quote, if you read that, it would confirm what i said at the beginning. i will support no budget, unlike you, who has already voted to take out $716 billion out of medicare. i will vote for no budget that will reduce the benefits are seniors are currently getting. >> these are your words. >> thank you very much. >> our next question from mark to mrs. mcmahon and mr. murphy. >> you have both describe yourself as pro-choice and strong supporters of women's reproductive health services. let's talk some specifics. would you oppose a supreme court candidate known to favor of overturning roe vs. wade? as far as reproductive health services, which you maintain the nixon era planning program, title 10, which provides reproductive health care through

planned parenthood and other private providers? >> i would. i would oppose supreme court justices who are going to use their position to strike down roe vs. wade and i would maintain and fight for this country's commitment to family planning. i'm here with my wife today and the issue of standing up for women's reproductive health is not just a political issue for us, it's a personal issue. my wife for eye long time was the board chair for connecticut -- and i went to fight at the legislature to fight to defeat one of the leading anti-choice legislators there. linda's history is a very different. she has said on record that she would support something called a blunt amendment which is a right-wing republican proposal that would allow any employer in this country to deny their employees, their female employes, coverage for contraceptive, not just religious employers, religious and non-religious employers. it is unconscionable that a

connecticut senator would go to washington to stand up for that kind of right wing proposal that could end of the nine -- end up denying couldn't septemberive -- contraceptive coverage to millions of women across the country. and maybe even more importantly, i will make a commitment, i will never support a leader in my party to the u.s. senate who would work to roe v. wade. if when that mcmahon is elected to the senate, no matter what the issue is, she will be empowering a senate majority leader and chairman of the judiciary committee will stop at nothing to erode women's health care. that's a big issue in this campaign. >> it is a myth to think that would be against women's health issues. i am a woman. clearly, i'm going to continue to support access to contraception, mammograms, pap smears, all of them as i did as the ceo of a company that provided all those health benefits to its employees.

i absolutely will not do anything that would impact women's health care issues. relative to a supreme court justice, i would hope there would not be a litmus test for president romney when he is presenting candidates for the supreme court. supreme court justices decide many issues. while i might not agree on each and everyone, i would want to vet that supreme court justice and judge the best justice for all of their beliefs and all of their rulings so that they would rule in accordian with the constitution. the blunt amendment was about overreach. it was not about contraception. it was about the of reach of government and the separation of church and state. i will always support the separation of church and state and the overreach of government.

part of what's wrong in washington is our government is too big. it keeps reaching into our lives. keeps reaching into our lives. i clearly support women's health issues but i don't support government overreach. >> here in connecticut, we have a lot on the books that says an -- we have a law on the books that says an ememployer has to cover basic preventive health care, which includes coverage for contraception. the blunt amendment would take direct aim at states like connecticut who have stood up for women's health care. it is frankly insulting for linda mcmahon to save you should only look at her gender, not what she stands for. she cannot run away from the fact she would vote for the blunt amendment, which would and coverage for birth control for thousands of connecticut and millions of women in this country. >> the next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> in connecticut, we have 9.1% unemployment. gas prices are rising well above $4. home values are down. how does this recession affected you?

>> this recession has impacted so many people in connecticut. 171,000 people woke up this morning without a job. the reason i've turned my focus so strongly about creating jobs and putting people back to work in this campaign is because that's the primary issue of this campaign. anytime anyone is impacted by higher gas prices, higher food prices, just the cost of everyday living, it is squeezing our middleclass. that is why my jobs plan and my tax provision start with a reduction of taxes to the middle-class, because those are the ones we need to give a lift, to have a tax cut for our job creators so are small businesses can continue to create jobs and we can start to turn this economy around and put people back in the state back to work.

that's what will solve the issues. if we put more people back to work, they have more money in their pockets, they pay more taxes, they buy more goods and services. if they buy more goods and services, we create more goods and services. we bring down the cost of fuel and energy and gas prices. in our energy policy so we can be energy independent. in our restaurants, we have to pay more for our food and deliveries. we have to bring down these costs and make our small businesses more viable. >> limit tell you how this recession has affected me -- i have fought even harder for the people i represent. i committed my life to public service because i saw my neighbors out of work. i saw my family being denied health care. when this recession hit, i turned up the volume on fighting for connecticut manufacturers. i founded the buy america caucus, dedicated to making sure our tax dollars stay in the

united states. i stepped up the volume when it came to making sure the social safety net was there for the people of this state who were out of work, whether it's a unemployment benefits for health care for them and their kids. i fought even harder in the public arena for people who needed help. how did this recession affect linda mcmahon? in 2009, her company took $10 million in state tax credit designed to create jobs. at the same time, she laid off 10% of the workforce and made $46 million that year. she says that was the tough time and a bad recession. all she had to do to keep those 10% of workers on board was to just make about $8 million less that year, and decide she could get buy on $38 million that year rather than $46 million, and

those people could still be working. this recession has made me work harder but this recession doesn't seem to have affected the linda mcmahon. >> you say that you have worked harder for the people of connecticut. i think need to be honest about your attendance record in washington. you did not attend the committee hearings dealing with the recession, even when you served on the powerful financial services committee. you missed 80% of those meetings. i think a recession is a time when you need to focus and understand as much as you can about what is going on and he needed to have been at those meetings. >> we have now reached about half a point of this debate. we not a question for mr. murphy. >> this question is about the income tax rate. do you support raising the top income tax rate as proposed by president obama or reducing the top rate proposed by mitt romney? >> let me first respond to -- >> you will have time at the end. the question is about income tax

rates for the highest incomes. >> i have a 97% of voting attendance rate in congress and i would be glad to talk about this issue going forward. it stands in direct contrast to linda mcmahon's voting record. let's talk about this issue. you're right. this is what people want to hear incredibly important. frankly, this is what people want to hear about it set of personal attacks. they want to hear about what we're going to do and what the differences between the two of us. my focus is on middle-class tax cuts. we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for 98% of americans and expand them for families

that need help paying for education or child care. i do not think we should extend the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of americans. do you know why i don't think that? we tried it. we tried massive tax cuts for the wealthy during the bush administration and it didn't work. there is no empirical data that shows it works. this is about choices. the choice is this -- do you think $7 million is better spent in a new tax cut for linda mcmahon, or better spent giving additional cuts for child care in hartford on strike is a better off giving $7 million to linda mcmahon or is it better to use that to reduce class sizes in new britain? i know how the people of this state will answer that question. >> my tax plan calls for cutting taxes for the middle-class. it is the only real reduction in taxes for the middle-class. it also calls for keeping the other tax rates the same, so there is no increase or decrease in any other bracket. it is simply about the middle class because that is where we need help. we need to reduce our taxes on business, but when i look at what our tax policy needs to be, we want to make sure while we are reducing taxes, we are also reducing spending. the reason tax cuts don't always

work is if you don't decrease spending at the same time. my plan calls for a 1% reduction in spending. we're on pace to spend $3.8 trillion this year. we have overlapping and duplicative programs that cost over $200 billion a year. i'm not talking about cutting back services, i'm talking about cutting spending. if we were to put the tax cuts in place that congressman murphy just talked about, we would have enough money to run the federal government for 26 days. that's not going to get the job done. that does not cut down on the size of government. that does not improve the lot of the 170,000 people who woke up and are still without a job. we need a comprehensive jobs plan to get our economy back on track. i have one. congressman murphy does not.

>> this is why we are in the problem we are in today. it's because candidates like linda mcmahon have promised everyone the world. we're going to have massive tax cuts and only cut spending by a little bit. arithmetic has to matter at some point, as bill clinton has said. she would cut taxes by $4.1 trillion and cut spending by $360 billion. should cut taxes by 12 times the rate should cut spending. that's why the university of connecticut says it's a recipe for disaster on the deficit. >> your campaign has talked a great deal about middle-class tax cuts. not so much about poverty or issues of economic inequality. connecticut is obviously a really wealthy state. a recent report noted that half of all

children live in poverty. bridgeport, new haven, waterbury are not that far behind. what is your campaign doing to address poverty issues? are there any party programs that are off-limits from budget cuts? -- any poverty programs off limits from budget cuts? >> i absolutely believe we have to have a safety net in place to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves. they did not opt to be in this situation. many of them are struggling. we are a benevolent nation that we want to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. however, i think the best way out of poverty is to have a job. i want to make sure we give people opportunities to have jobs and work. when they can go to work, they're paying into the economy. they're helping the economy grow. congressman murphy talks about a tax plan that doesn't make mathematical sense. he is looking at america and the most visible way. he's not looking at an america that can grow and have economic

growth because we have a growth plan in place that is going to make our economy better. those people who are suffering and who are in poverty and are below the poverty line, we need to continue to take care of them. and you are in poverty, we need to continue to take care of them. as i drew the difference between governor romney and myself, when he talked about those in poverty, i said they haven't chosen to be there. i would not cut our food stamp programs now because we need to make sure those folks can continue to be taken care of. but let's get them a job and get them back to work so families can progress. >> thank you, mrs. mcmahon. mr. murphy. >> again, this is just about numbers. if you except this tax cut number, the only way to account for it is to have massive cut to these programs that do put people to work and grow jobs and take care people when they are out of work.

you have to look at the work i have done. i've committed my life to standing up to the most vulnerable among us. some of the work i do on these issues may be don't get the big headlines. i wrote a piece of legislation, the support of housing investment act, named after a great advocate for anti-homeless here in connecticut that would triple the amount of housing units built for the most vulnerable among us. people have very grave mental illnesses and physical handicaps that can live on their own if they just have some supportive housing wrapped around them. i brought millions of dollars back to the state to take homeless veterans of the streets. when i was sworn into office, there were about a thousand veterans living on the streets. we tripled the number of units we paid for across the state to bring the veterans of the woods, in water deps bury, from under the bridges in

stanford, and put them in housing again. you don't have to look of my campaign website to see if i care about the most vulnerable among us. you just have to look at the work i've done. i've dedicated my life to the people of the state and that would be a priority if i'm elected to the senate. >> you have 30 seconds to rabat. forse force >> thank you, mr. murphy. mrs. mcmahon, have you 30 seconds to reput. >> it is imperative we continue the social programs to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but i want to make sure when i'm in the senate that i'm pushing for of my jobs plan to get our people back to work and grow our economy because when we grow our economy, everyone will benefit and will have a healthier and stronger nation. that's what i propose to do in washington. >> thank you. our next question. >> just to be clear, mr. murphy, the democrats say we don't have to cut programs like social security and medicare to tackle the national debt and republicans in general say we don't need to raise taxes.

what do you think about that question mark what programs and how would you go about cutting and would you? >> i have called for a 1% cut in discretionary spending and i have been specific about where we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the -- i have stood up and opposed wasteful spending. but i do believe we need a combination of both. we need additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and some serious spending cuts.

we need both. the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstructionism and draw these ridiculously hard lines and the stand -- hard line in the sand. we need a compromise solution that will draw from both sides of the ledger. >> as a ceo, i had to bring people to the table to get a deal done. that is how you negotiate an have compromise. we put the issues on the table. everybody thinks hard what they

want. in the end, you walk away from the table with both sides getting some of what they wanted, but not all of what they wanted. congressman murphy, you and i agree on a 1% cut, except i would not cut more from defense. we have already had a half a trillion dollars cut out of this budget. and sequestration, we'll have another half trillion come out of our defense budget. the defense industry is very big in connecticut with our submarine base and all the small industries that do subcontract work. it's about $3 billion for the state of connecticut. i'm not going to vote for any more cuts in defense spending because we need to have a strong defense and we need to preserve that portion of the economy here in the state of connecticut. i think there are other places to find that 1 percent and cut.

you and i agree on duplicative programs. that's something we can take without cutting services. let's not forget, my plan is a growth plan. when put in place, our economy will grow and revenue will increase, because that's the way america is. >> mr. murphy, you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> another in 90 seconds and no answers. not a single specific cut she would support and another example of fealty to supply-side, trickle-down economics that have not worked. trust me, they will eventually trickle down to everyone else. we don't need people who are going to washington without specific ideas where they would cut, without any answers to how they would achieve compromise. it's one thing to say i'm going to have everyone sit down on the table, it's another to have to be able to sit down and do it. >> thank you. our next question to mrs.

mcmahon. >> if obamacare is repealed, what is your plan to ensure the millions of americans who would be left without health insurance as a result? >> i am on record saying i would repeal and replace obamacare. there are parts of obamacare and i think are very good. the fact that a child today, that they can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26 is a good thing. i think we need to ensure, though, that we are not being penalized for a preexisting condition. that's a very good thing in obamacare. however, i think obamacare was put into place to bring down the cost curve on health care and that is not what is happening. insurance premiums are going up, the cost of health care is going up. we're going to add about 10 million more people to our health care world and we're not going to have that doctors or medical personnel to support that. i think we need a health-care

revision. there's no question about that. but we need a health care revisions that's going to allow a marketplace to compete to bring down the cost. we need to be able to buy insurance across state lines. that means states have to get out of mandates for insurance. we need tort reforms to bring down the cost of insurance. we need accessibility for insurance. we need affordability for insurance. this current law is not going to do that. it will continue to drive up health-care costs and the cost of insurance premiums. >> you have 90 seconds. >> let me tell you why -- why i have dedicated my life to the idea that everyone should have access to decent health care. there's a woman in connecticut by the name of betty bergman. she and her husband have worked hard all their lives. her husband was switching jobs and in between those two jobs, during the week he was unemployed, their son was diagnosed with cancer.

when it would to get insurance on her husband's new plan, they would not provide for because he had a pre-existing condition. one week or two weeks of a lifetime and they didn't have insurance. you know what happened to the bergers? they lost everything. they lost their house, their savings, they became destitute simply because an illness happened at the wrong time. there is no repeal and replace plan. republicans in washington have voted to repeal this bill 33 times, and they have never offered any replacement. we need to protect this bill and perfect it going forward. it matters for all of those individuals out there who have been discriminated against because they are sick and have gone bankrupt. because someone in their family got ill and could not get health care simply because they did not

have the money to afford it. let's fix this bill and make it right. the methodology that you could just preserve the good parts what getting all -- getting rid of the parts you don't like cannot happen. that not what the republican party planned on doing. >> i would vote to repeal and replace because this was passed under the mark of government health care. i don't think that's the most efficient way to offer health care to our citizens. within this bill, there are 21 tax increases. congressman murphy, the -- you referenced cutting taxes for small businesses under this plan. but it doesn't. it raises taxes. small businesses tell me this is their single largest concern. >> the next question is for mr. murphy. >> regardless what happens with the affordable care act, the government will remain deeply involved in government health care. who gets covered, medicaid, medicare. i want to ask about a very sensitive part of health

costs. one-third of u.s. health care spending is to take care of merneds in their last year of life. does that need to change? and how does government tackle something like that without the debate quickly turning into talk about government death panels and health-care rationing? >> we need to make a commitment to people on health care systems like medicare and medicaid that we will take care of them throughout their lives. and we will take care of them compassionately at the end of life. that's my commitment as united states senator. but in order to do that, the have to have a medicare and medicaid program that works for those individuals and is not just designed to pad the bottom lines of insurance companies. this is where linda mcmahon and i differ. i believe we have to make changes to medicare to save the program. we have to make it more efficient and cost-effective. we have to get the waste out of it.

we don't need to privatize it. linda mcmahon said she would entertain paul ryan's plan to privatize medicare. that's the way she would look at it. i will not. i will fight privatization of medicare with every breath i have because, to your question -- if medicare or medicaid becomes privatized and is being run by health-care insurance companies, then the decisions that are made will be what is in their best interest. what makes their bottom line better, not what protect s connecticut's seniors, not what connects those families trying to come to a very tough decision. >> should government have our role in and of life health-care and the spending that goes with that? >> the way to do this is to simply not empower health insurance bureaucrats. the way to do is to have families deep in consultation with physicians about the best course of action is either direction and their choice at the end of life.